Posted on 06/28/2005 11:31:22 AM PDT by Happy2BMe
Outrage Lingers Over Property Rights Ruling
By Susan Jones
CNSNews.com Senior Editor
June 28, 2005
(CNSNews.com) -- Although the Supreme Court's Ten Commandments ruling dominated Monday's headlines, a property rights ruling handed down last week still has many Americans shaking their heads -- including some lawmakers, who plan to do something about it.
Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.) has introduced a bill, the Protection of Homes, Small Businesses, and Private Property Act of 2005, in response to last week's 5-4 decision in Kelo v. City of New London.
The Supreme Court ruled that the government may seize the home, small business or other private property of one citizen and transfer it to another private citizen -- if the transfer would boost the community's economic development and its tax base.
The Cornyn legislation, introduced Monday, would prohibit transfers of private property without the owner's consent if federal funds were used; and if the transfer was for purposes of economic development rather than public use.
"It is appropriate for Congress to take action ... to restore the vital protections of the Fifth Amendment and to protect homes, small businesses, and other private property rights against unreasonable government use of the power of eminent domain," Cornyn said.
"This legislation would declare Congress's view that the power of eminent domain should be exercised only for 'public use,' as guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment," Cornyn said. "Most importantly, the power of eminent domain should not be used simply to further private economic development."
Cornyn's legislation would clarify that 'public use' shall not be construed to include economic development.
In remarks on the Senate floor Monday, Cornyn said the protection of homes, small businesses, and other private property rights against government seizure is "a fundamental principle and core commitment of our nation's Founders."
He noted that the Fifth Amendment specifically provides that "private property" shall not "be taken for public use without just compensation." The Fifth Amendment, he emphasized, permits government to seize private property only "for public use."
Cornyn called the Supreme Court's June 23, 2005, ruling in Kelo v. City of New London an "alarming decision" that should prompt lawmakers to take action.
"The power of eminent domain should not be used simply to further private economic development," Cornyn said.
"In the aftermath of Kelo, we must take all necessary action to restore and strengthen the protections of the Fifth Amendment. I ask my colleagues to lend their support to this effort, by supporting the Protection of Homes, Small Businesses, and Private Property Act of 2005."
Cornyn also said the Supreme Court's Kelo decision partly vindicates those who supported the nomination of Justice Janice Rogers Brown to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
"That nomination attracted substantial controversy in some quarters, Cornyn said, "because of Justice Brown's personal passion for the protection of private property rights. The Kelo decision announced last Thursday demonstrates that her concerns about excessive government interference with property rights is well-founded and well within the mainstream of American jurisprudence."
Sen. Cornyn currently chairs the Judiciary Committee's subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Citizenship, and in the last Congress he was chairman of the Constitution, Civil Rights and Property Rights subcommittee. A former Texas Supreme Court justice, Texas attorney general, and Bexar County District judge, Cornyn is the only former judge on the Judiciary Committee.
I agree this is a horrendous decision, but ED/private property protections are still an available option for States. From the majority opinion:
"We emphasize that nothing in our opinion precludes any State from placing further restrictions on its exercise of the takings power. Indeed, many States already impose "public use" requirements that are stricter than the federal baseline."
Congress!
Not sure if they still use a "rational relationship to a legitimate state interest" test, but I can assure you that if `push comes to shove', and another developer complains that some stubborn homeowners are `standing in the way of progress', you will see a federal appeals court enforcing Kelo. That stuff you cited from the majority opinion was just window-dressing.
And that's why developers are ecstatic and so many middle-class Americans are unhappy with them.
It appears we've got at least 5 blk robes in the supreme court that should be IMPEACHED!!!!
What would the amendment say?
"This time we MEAN it."
No, throwing a few of them to the curb is a much better idea. I emailed Logan, and offered to invest $10k, as soon as he can produce a business plan.
Hint: The U.S.S.C. covers their own ar$e$.
I read both of them - the Developer is the guy I offered to invest with.
We're trying to get into the ground floor of a construction company dedicated to building hotels on each USSC Justices' Homesite. I mean - just the Fab Five.
Let the games begin.
I hope it all works out and you make $$$millions from the deal.
Sad thing about impeachment is, if the shoes were reversed:
if it were the Dems in the majority in Congress and
it were the Republican nominated justices on the court that made this decision...
Is there any DOUBT what they'd do? Sad really. Our party has NO CLUE how to grab someone by the balls. They're really blowing it with this one.
I like revenge games. I think it is what they deserve.
I'm Russian. Revenge is part of our DNA.
Well, let the REVENGE begin!!
If that's the case, then this decision flies in the face of Soldal vs. Cook County in which a unanimous USSC overturned lower courts stating that if the 4th Amendment protects property, that one's home is certainly property and therefore protected.
In Soldal, the complainant alleged that his 4th Amendment rights were violated when the Cook County Sheriff's Dept. aided his landlord in towing his trailer off of the lot without the necessary eviction order. (If I seem to know a good deal about this case, it's because the lovely Mrs. Flada is also Mr. Soldal's daughter.)
There is a good deal of it - meaning these oligarchic rulers don't even trust themselves. They fight like brats at a Ritalin party.
Makes you feel good, don't it?
-PJ
more fun with federalism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/premption_of_state_and_local_laws_in_the_united_states
Sure, the preemption doctrine is limited to statutes.
The SCOTUS wouldn't provide that hopeful language in their opinion, then ride rough-shod over states rights by accepting an appeal, even though a state statute bore a rational relationship to a legitimate state interest: preventing developers from making tax-payers--granted, they pay less taxes than the new development would pay--homeless?
Would they?
The media will try to sink or ignore this nascent movement. They thrive off of advertising money. RE developers are HUGE advertisers in newspapers and TV.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.